


Good Omens, Greater Results: The Intertextual Relationship Between Fanon and Canon in Adaptation

by lamphouse



Series: non-fiction [1]
Category: Good Omens - Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett
Genre: Analysis, Authority Figures, Essays, Gen, Literary Theory, M/M, Meta, Nonfiction, Queer Themes, Textual Analysis, in many forms!, intertextuality
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2019-03-19
Updated: 2019-03-19
Packaged: 2019-11-15 20:51:58
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 7
Words: 7,895
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/18080687
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/lamphouse/pseuds/lamphouse
Summary: Abstract: This paper examines how the history of queer shipping among fans of the novelGood Omens, and the authority derived thereof, is under negotiation in light of the new television adaptation. Drawing on previous research on the distinctions and overlap between academic and fan analysis (Busse, Polasek, Aragay and López) and broader intertextuality (Martin, Kristeva, Barthes), it shows how online interactions within theGood Omensfandom as well as between fans and Neil Gaiman show how fans use intertextual and fannish analysis to challenge the fan/creator boundary, and how that is, in turn, challenged by the upcoming series. This paper argues for a reconsideration of the current distinctions made between the analytical practices of fans versus academics, and how fans take authority over their texts by queer representation.





	1. Introduction

**Author's Note:**

> hello! this is a research paper I wrote on GO & GO fans for a class last fall that I just realized I could totally post here (after some amount of reformatting lol). this is one chapter per section so you don't have to go all the way to the end for (now linked!) footnotes, with the works cited at the end, but if you'd like to see it in all its proper footnoted glory, you can read it on google docs [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N1--HxDkeN5hpfRQvv6O4PGr1NVoVlo1t9azHhO1MeE/).

**Introduction**

In terms of study, the fandom of _Good Omens_ by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman just may be the perfect focus. With the object of their fandom being about how texts are read and interpreted, the parallels write themselves, and it's easy to jump right into the metatextual questions when the text itself provides answers. With regards to authorship and the question of who controls the meaning of a text, fans of _Good Omens_ know that a reading against the grain (even one that undoes something as monumental as the end of the world) is as valid as any other. After all, if the mere suggestion that something might be written differently somewhere else, in bigger letters, underlined, twice, is enough to save the world, who's to say that what one person writes in their corner of the internet is any less powerful? (Pratchett and Gaiman 2007, 337)

_Good Omens_ fans are having to put that theory into practice now, twenty-eight years after the novel's publication, as a new adaptation and possibly new edition of the story is on the horizon. It's not the first time an adaptation of this novel has been made, but as the first major television series with one of the original authors as showrunner that draws from Pratchett and Gaiman's collaborative notes for a scrapped sequel to expand the universe of the novel with more characters, more backstory, and more Queen songs, it's safe to say this one is a bigger deal for fans (Hemley 2014, [Hoff 2013](http://glasgowcomedy.blogspot.com/2013/02/amy-hoff-good-omens.html/), [Cain 2016](https://www.theguardian.com/books/tvandradioblog/2016/apr/15/good-omens-neil-gaiman-to-adapt-terry-pratchett-collaboration-for-tv/)). Though sadly only one is an active part, the spirit of both authors is promised to be throughout the series, painting the show as less of an adaptation and more of an author's preferred edition of the text, one that (even under its own philosophy) challenges the authority of any "mere" fan reading. If _Good Omens_ the novel is the prediction of the apocalypse, the series is the equivalent of God Himself coming down to explain everything.

Particularly regarding queer representation and the long-standing fan reading of two characters (angel Aziraphale and demon Crowley) as a romantic pairing, a division is happening in this fandom as the series approaches. Some see it as negating their queer reading; some see it as running counter, but not any more or less valid than their own; some see it as an authorial flex of power; some see it as a combination of any or all of the above, and more. I argue that _Good Omens_ fans (and, in particular, Aziraphale/Crowley shippers) attempt to navigate this question of authority through the same intertextual means by which fans generally do, as well as academics ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 65). Looking at interactions on Neil Gaiman's Tumblr and Twitter accounts, fan works, and discussions among fans, I claim that _Good Omens_ fans take authority over the text by rebutting authorship in a way reflective of both fan practices and academic queer studies.

Though no research has been done into the _Good Omens_ fandom specifically, this paper applies the conclusions and terms found in the existing conversations regarding authorship in fandom and queer fandom works. Following the framework laid out in Ashley Polasek's review of Sherlockian discourse, _Good Omens_ fans also engage in a variety of both "affirmational" and "transformational" modes "as a method for members of the LGBTQ+ community to appropriate" text through casual "headcanon" as well as formal literary analysis ([Polasek 2017](https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/911/778), 5.15). However, I argue that although fans allow a greater degree of emotional investment, allowing a greater variety in interpretations which may be "oppositional to the source text's clearly expressed condition," _Good Omens_ fans use methods indicative of "academic discourses" as well, interpreting within "fairly limited lines of well-supportable readings" as well as traditionally "fannish" transformational works to make their reading more authoritative and capable of challenging the author ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 106–108). I argue that the studied intertextual relationship between "social commentary, historical circumstance, and 'culture'" and literature—and between literature and academic theory—functions similarly to that between those same forces and fan works, and between fan works and the values/norms/views of those fans with regards to their object of fandom ([Garber 2001](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/garb11032.11), 205). After all, "All writing is intertextual, communal, and performative to a degree; fan fiction just tends to be more so" ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 142).

It is necessary to clarify exactly what I mean by the intertextuality of _Good Omens_ and its fandom. I use the basic definition of and terminology related to "intertextuality" laid out by Elaine Martin, drawing on the terminology of Julia Kristeva and Roland Barthes, to argue that fan works and discussions function as intertextual analysis, citing Martin's points that intertextuality has a close connection with creations like pastiches and has evolved "so that it is not [...] exclusively related to works of literature or other written texts, including virtual texts" (Martin 2011). I also use Obsession_inc's definitions for "affirmational" and "transformational" fan works ([obsession_inc 2009](https://web.archive.org/web/20170920155439/http://obsession-inc.dreamwidth.org/82589.html)) to argue that in both affirmational and transformational practices, _Good Omens_ fans reach the same queer reading through different approaches to authorship in ways that mirror how queer theory academics treat their own texts.

In this paper I first give an overview of the landscape of the _Good Omens_ fandom in the lead-up to the adaptations' release, beginning with the state of things before the announcement of the mini-series, to determine (by applying definitions laid out by Busse and Polasek) where _Good Omens_ fans do and do not follow discussed patterns of affirmational and transformational fan work. I then describe how their views of authorship have come against this new "canon," where the remaining conflicts stem from, and by what intertextual means _Good Omens_ fans are negotiating the role of the author in updated texts with regards to queer representation.


	2. In the Beginning

**In the Beginning**

Like many of their fannish cohorts, members of the _Good Omens_ fandom use their transformational and affirmational powers both toward creating queer representation in a book that otherwise lacks it. Across platforms like Tumblr and LiveJournal, affirmational fan discussions closer to literary analysis orient around queer readings of the book just as much as transformational fan works, like those on Archive of Our Own (AO3), on which slash _Good Omens_ works outnumber all other categories combined ([mostlyanything19 and irisbleufic 2018](http://mostlyanything19.tumblr.com/post/179660819658/); "Good Omens - Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett - Works | Archive of Our Own"). In particular, fans focus on the angel Aziraphale and demon Crowley, two relatively peripheral characters. Though technically a key part of plot, they are largely on the periphery of most of the novel—the book opens with a foreshadowing-laden conversation between the two in Eden, then an attempt to counteract the beginnings of the Apocalypse by making sure the Antichrist is raised with equal heavenly and hellish influence, before they largely disappear from the development of the overarching plot. Combined, they are only present for 30% of the total book,[1] and only 16% together. Of the fan fiction on Archive of Our Own, however, 51% of _Good Omens_ works are tagged "Aziraphale/Crowley," and 6.54% tagged "Aziraphale & Crowley" (on AO3, a relationship tag with a slash indicates a romantic or sexual relationship, whereas an ampersand means the relationship is platonic, although these are up to the author and, in fact, are often qualified in author's notes as somewhere between the two). Combined, at least one of them is present in 81% of works, and 64% together.[2] Though this only looks at Archive of Our Own (and does not include the large number of _Good Omens_ fan works on Tumblr or LiveJournal, which are harder to survey), there is a noticeable trend among Good Omens fans across platforms that shows the characters and their relationship is more prevalent in fan works than the amount of canon content about them would suggest.

However, while fans of the novel have thus far had to fill the spaces between the lines, the mini-series promises more content, in part to close the gap between the prominence of these characters in fanon and canon works. So far, the only named characters to appear in promotional materials for the series are Aziraphale and Crowley, and the first trailer is centered on their relationship, set to the fan favorite "Best Friend" by Queen. This is not just a matter of editing, either—part of that expansion of the story is to cover "Crowley and Aziraphale in bygone years" and show the progression of their relationship over the six thousand years only alluded to in the novel ([Gaiman 2017b](http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/169084845106/)). Another major difference between _Good Omens_ the novel and _Good Omens_ the mini-series is the time period, which has been shifted up to the modern day so that the apocalypse is "2019ish" as opposed to the early 1990s ([Gaiman 2017b](http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/169084845106/)). It is an update in values as well as aesthetics; aspects of the original novel that were (admittedly satirical) racist and homophobic are being removed by Gaiman, who has said they are "definitely not [jokes] I'd do today" ([Gaiman 2018b](http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/175684868896/)).[3] The translation from 1990 to 2019 is not just one of style, budget, or expansion, but one of retroactive editing as well, bringing the text closest to the authors' (and author's) ideal edition of the story while reflecting back on the context in which it was both written and adapted (Aragay and López 2005, 204).

Between the history of queer shipping, the changes involved in the 21st century update, and the expansion of Aziraphale and Crowley's roles, not to mention Gaiman's knowledge of the popularity of Aziraphale/Crowley in the fandom, many fans have wondered whether their "fanon" queer reading will be made canon in the series—that, essentially, their queer reading might be now explicitly "articulated within, alongside, or against the presumably straight ideological agendas of most texts," as opposed to the processes of "secret (sub)cultural coding, recoding, and decoding" they currently use ([Doty 1993](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.cttttcmx), 38, 33). However, despite Gaiman's claimed support of fan readings as equally legitimate to his personal interpretations, there will be no such change. Though Gaiman has written that Aziraphale/Crowley is "not unreasonable," fans are still "Making Stuff Up," just as he is "Making Stuff Up" for the series ([Gaiman 2017b](http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/169084845106/)).

In the lead up to the premiere, the _Good Omens_ fandom has been splintering into those who do and do not see the series as canon, in part due to this refutation. While some are disappointed but accepting of the show, like Twitter user @ophio_cordyceps, who wrote, "good omens was extremely good and i'm excited to see a bad show full of homoeroticism when the miniseries comes out," others remain dubious, even going so far as to create a specific forum where they may air their grievances without disturbing the excitement of their fellow fans ([@ophio_cordyceps 2018](https://twitter.com/ophio_cordyceps/status/1049857256815235073/); [irisbleufic 2018b](http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/178924939615/)). As Gaiman's view of the series as solely his interpretation4 only further complicates the issue, _Good Omens_ fans may turn to the novel (and even the author himself) for answers—a move that counteracts their otherwise intertextual relationship with the text and its supposed true arbiter of meaning, the Author ([Gaiman 2017b](http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/169084845106/)).

* * *

1 By very liberal estimates, either Aziraphale or Crowley is present for 3776 lines, which is 111 of the 369 total pages in the 2007 HarperCollins edition (where one page is 34 lines), and only 60 of those 111 pages have both.

2 Obviously, these percentages don't indicate the same degree of involvement, as technically either character is present in 81% of _Good Omens_ fan fiction and 100% of _Good Omens_ itself, but it does show the disproportionate conversion from canon to fan works.

3 Here Gaiman himself shows the "underlying socio-political importance" of intertextuality, rewriting the text in accordance with the updated social context of the adaptation's time period, although without going so far as to take possible queer characters out of "the ellipses" where they are still often relegated (Martin 2011, 149; [Harris 2016](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/still-looking-lgbt-representation-in-american-cinema/)).

4 A view that then affects every aspect of the production: in an interview with The Verge, David Tennant (who plays Crowley in the series) confirmed this, saying, "In a way, [the TV show] then becomes its own beast, and you're playing each scene as it comes up. There has to come a point where you have to go 'Well, now it's this, we've made a decision, and that's the story we're telling." ([Liptak 2018](https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/7/17946442/))


	3. The death of one author and the birth of many more

**The death of one author and the birth of many more**

With the adaptation under Gaiman's watchful eye, the author is not so much dead as he is constantly lurking, replying to your posts, and always available for a Q&A.[5] In 2018, the author is available in a way that couldn't have been imagined eight years ago, let alone twenty-eight, let alone the fifty-one that have passed since Barthes's "The Death of the Author" was published. Gaiman's now infamous pronouncement that the adaptation will be as much "Making Stuff Up" on his part as fan fiction is on the part of fans, while certainly clarifying how _he_ sees the issue, neglects to account not only for the traditional power differential between author and fan, but the fundamental fact that the television series can be seen to function as a canon installment, offering new material from the authors themselves ([Gaiman 2017b](http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/169084845106/)). In a blog post, he writes, "The TV series gets deeper into Crowley and Aziraphale's relationship. It'll be canonical for the TV series, and not canonical for the book," posing the novel and the show as two different texts for the fans to engage with. But with both works having the same characters and plot, let alone producer and author of both works, they are inextricably linked. If, as Foucault's author-function argues, the author is involved "not in a vacuum but as a historical, political, national, social, gendered, and sexed being who writes and is read within particular contexts and against specific historicopolitical and socioeconomic events," even an intertextual reading that takes all these aspects into account, and even additional fan texts, it is unavoidable that with two texts this close to identical fans reach the same readings ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 28).

This possibility of reinventing the wheel is, itself, reflected in the practices of the _Good Omens_ fandom, whose long fandom history has been just as disrupted as others in the shifts between major platforms/sites of congregation,[6] but follows the same processes of looking for "evidence" in the text for their queer reading ([irisbleufic and trans-crowley 2018](http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/180308926870/)). Unrelated analytical "meta" posts made six years apart reach the same analysis of a key scene for Aziraphale/Crowley shippers. Right before what is supposedly the penultimate battle of the world, the angel and demon come to an understanding with the respective lines, "I'll have known, deep down inside, that there was a spark of goodness in you," and, "I'll have known that, deep down inside, you were just enough of a bastard to be worth liking." (Pratchett and Gaiman 2007) In 2012, Tumblr user futureevilscientist (with additions from iembracetrees and thebaconsandwichofregret) goes into the grammatical structure[7] of the lines (lines, it should be noted, they refer to as an "exchange ~~of wedding vows~~ ") to come to a reading that emphasizes the relationship between the two as something unadmitted but felt by both parties nevertheless—the same conclusion that Tumblr users mostlyanything19 and irisbleufic come to independently, six years later, through similar analysis ([futureevilscientist 2012a](http://futureevilscientist.tumblr.com/post/26702097990/), [mostlyanything19 and irisbleufic 2018](http://mostlyanything19.tumblr.com/post/179660819658/)). Futureevilscientist's argument that "Aziraphale is essentially apologising for six thousand years of treating Crowley as inherently evil" is unknowingly expanded by irisbleufic to return to the relationship at hand by acknowledging the reciprocity in the second sentence, summed up by returning to the source: "he ought to tell Heaven, but he _wants_ to tell Crowley" (in reference to _Good Omens_ , 220). Both groups of fans use academic practices to glean meaning from their texts, and both find the same result, so that not only do the individual processes of analysis lend their queer readings authority, but the intertextual connection between the two does as well.

Here fans are engaged in a process Julia Kristeva refers to as "reading-writing," participating in the making of a text by reading their source "signifying structure in relation or opposition to another structure," even more fitting for a community/subject matter so heavily reliant on signs and coding (Kristeva 1986, 36; [Doty 1993](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.cttttcmx)).[8] In contrast with headcanons[9] that do not necessarily need to "appeal to, or claim to represent, an authoritative reading of the ur-text," fans see their queer reading of Crowley and Aziraphale as not tangential to the source text, but essential to understanding it ([Polasek 2017](https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/911/778), 5.14). This is then not, as Busse argues, an example of fans "refusing to follow the authorial authoritative expectations on how to enjoy and interpret the sources," but a process that nevertheless "[challenges] the implicit power differential" by reader and writer claiming the same authority through "acceptable" modes of literary analysis (rather than standard fan practices implicitly lower than those of creators). ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 100)

These fan practices are a world tangential to that of the creator's but still largely distinct. Fans may be willing to interact with Gaiman over memes and questions regarding the upcoming series, but they are hyper-aware of the lines kept between Gaiman and their own work. There are no asks on Gaiman's blog relating to fan fiction or fan art (although inevitably there are some sitting in his inbox) and conversations about fan fiction and other works are largely insular.[10] While fans do use transformational work "to express their preferences, manipulations, and interpretations in their fan discourse without needing to appeal to, or claim to represent, an authoritative reading of the ur-text," not all transformational Aziraphale/Crowley works fully adhere to this ([Polasek 2017](https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/911/778), 5.14). Contrary to Gaiman's pronouncement that "Your headcanon is your headcanon," most fans do not see a romantic relationship between Aziraphale and Crowley as an appropriative headcanon but rather a natural extension of the text ([Gaiman 2017a](http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/164222681376/)).[11] This is not a transformational "fannish impulse" wherein the author's text is manipulated to reflect the fans, but a separate group close reading their source to find queer representation they see as "not even subtext" but text itself, on equal (if divided) grounds ([Polasek 2017](https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/911/778), 5.17; irisbleufic and trans-crowley 2018).[12]

Fan fiction and fan practices in general are intertextual by necessity, drawing from not only their chosen source material (which, in this context, is seen as a text regardless of the original mode of presentation) but from the analyses and writings of their fellow fans as well.[13] As opposed to traditional academic studies, which draw from other writers as secondary to their analysis of their source texts, both transformational and affirmational fans work in the greater context of their fandom, and the work they produce reflects this "embeddedness" ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 143). In this way, it is not dissimilar to academic queer theory, where intertextual readings and considerations are key. "Contemporary queer theory and politics," she writes, "are [...] historically influenced and intertextually informed," reliant not just on fellow and tangentially related theorists, but other, broader categories, such as poetry and history ([Garber 2001](https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/garb11032.11), 205). _Good Omens_ fans respond with an intertextual view that reflects the allusive nature of their chosen text,[14] creating fan works that cover everything from the Great Fire of Rome (AD 64) to the last River Thames frost fair (1814) to how the lurid _Codex Buranus_ made its way to an abbey (12th/13th century) to the city-state of London (several hundred years in the future).[15]

It's not uncommon for a _Good Omens_ fan work[16] to reference lesser known parts of the Bible and the James Bond franchise in the same breath, and not unexpected for fans, for whom this is par for the course. The "network of dialogic cross-references" in the _Good Omens_ fandom stretches to encompass not just their fellow fan works and contexts, but greater historical and cultural subjects, to create works as allusively saturated as Gaiman and Pratchett's original text (Aragay and López 2005, 204). Fans employ the same allusive techniques or "cultural recycling" and invest the same amount of energy to research and writing as the authors of the source did in writing (and rewriting, presumably), much as they employ the same analytical techniques and practices as academic queer theorists, adding to their traditionally fannish practices to increase their ability to make meaning of the text (Aragay and López 2005, 202).

* * *

5 For _Good Omens_ fans, this unavoidable relationship has become a fandom in-joke, prompting users across sites to jokingly question if any of them is Neil Gaiman in disguise. "Someone tagged Neil Gaiman on my post and now I live in fear," one fan posted. "Behind every like there is maybe Neil Gaiman. Every reblog could be Neil Gaiman. Are you Neil Gaiman? No? Well that's something Neil Gaiman would say." To this, Neil Gaiman replied, "It is, isn't it?" ([marquise-de-clarabas 2018](https://marquise-de-clarabas.tumblr.com/post/179590263863/))

6 In addition to the fragmentary nature of cross-platform fandom that Busse describes in "Fandom's Ephemeral Traces", fandom events such as StrikeThrough '07 coincided with the heights of the _Good Omens_ fandom's time on LiveJournal ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 150–151).

7 Grammar in this section of the novel is a big deal for Aziraphale/Crowley fans—Aziraphale's intervening line "Yes." is referred to as "The Full Stop," a familiar focus of analysis in the fandom ([futureevilscientist 2012b](http://futureevilscientist.tumblr.com/post/37013149306/)).

8 This too reflects academic queer practices, where Barthes's "understanding of subjectivity" that "our understanding of ourselves as [individuals] is an effect of those representational codes commonly used to describe the self," is applied to the way societal coding and self-identity of sexuality feed into each other, in conjunction with numerous other sources (Jagose 1996, 78).

9 Not all headcanons by _Good Omens_ fans are focused on a strict reading of the text—for example, Crowley having a Roomba ([anthonycrowley 2018b](http://anthonycrowley.tumblr.com/post/180422126681/)) or how characters acted before the start of the novel ([nemeanlionblepping 2018](http://nemeanlionblepping.tumblr.com/post/180310548780/)) are less "serious" examples of expanding canon—but their same queer readings are noticeably un-transformational in comparison. Good Omens fans do inhabit a "space for legitimating multiple parallel and conflicting readings [as] is characteristic of transformational discourse," but not for this, refuting the idea that they are applying sexualities to characters without need for making authoritative claims but instead reading the text in a way that those sexualities are authoritative claims themselves ([Polasek 2017](https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/911/778), 5.14).

10 Even Gaiman's infamous (in fandom) blog post where he refers to a misremembered anecdote about "the South Downs thing" (see note 22) as "a rather desperate attempt to make slash canon (which it isn't)" comes from his own expeditions into internet spaces, rather than a fan crossing the fan/creator barrier ([Gaiman 2006](http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2006/05/what-bears-do-on-lawn.html/)).

11 Though this particular post is regarding headcanons of physical appearance, the attitude and word choice are reflective of other posts by Gaiman regarding (queer) shipping as well.

12 In fact, if anyone is manipulating the text to reflect "the fans, their concerns, and the contemporary historical and cultural environment," it is Gaiman himself, whose adaptation has "parallel and conflicting readings" through undermining original symbolism in the novel in what fans have described as "destroying his own book from the inside out," making the mini-series "Bootleg Omens" ([Gaiman 2018a](http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/173209934846/); [skippercifer 2018a](https://skippercifer.tumblr.com/post/173204080349/); [petimetrek 2018)](http://petimetrek.tumblr.com/post/173199704101/).

13 This is especially true for fans of a novel, or any text (in the broadest sense) that does not include a canonical visual component. As Gaiman himself has said, "People build characters in their heads out of whatever they have to hand, not just the words," forcing/allowing readers to immediately draw from outside sources ([Gaiman 2018c](https://twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1039256111059283969/)).

14 Any attempt to catalog the immense number of explicit references (let alone allusions and influences even the writers may not know they made) will be only "Trying-Mightily-Hard-To-Be" comprehensive ([Asher-Perrin 2013](https://www.tor.com/2013/05/22/a-comprehensive-reference-guide-to-good-omens/)).

15 ["A City in Flames" by KaskardenFluvia](https://archiveofourown.org/works/16451420/), ["Small Miracles" by KaskardenFluvia](https://archiveofourown.org/works/16416734/), "[Carmina Burana" by Lunasong365](https://archiveofourown.org/works/7769941/), and ["World Without End" by Nny](https://archiveofourown.org/works/48938/), respectively.

16 This includes other types of fan works as well—in particular, fan artists often play with the style of illuminated manuscripts, putting _Good Omens_ characters in medieval clothing and situations ([bravinto 2018](http://bravinto.tumblr.com/post/169590037347/); [mejev 2018](http://mejev.tumblr.com/post/179523836912/)) or even just actual illuminations of Biblical passages, contextualized in the novel ([improbabledreams900 2018](http://improbabledreams900.tumblr.com/tagged/illuminations/)).


	4. The no man’s land between fanon and canon

**The no man's land between fanon and canon**

Though fan works are in "intertextual dialogue" with both their sources and their peers, both these works and discussions of them remain in fan spaces. Even as the fandom shifts into a transmedial "convergence" space by branching out into new mediums and new audiences, even as the internet's erosion of the line between fan and creator, and the various boundaries involved in that relationship, _Good Omens_ fans seem content to keep fan fiction and fan discussions in these spaces and creator interactions on the far side of the metaphorical room (Jenkins 2006). Even as fans "take media in their own hands" and create their own spaces, those spaces are distinct from the author's space of the adaptation, and comfortably so (Jenkins 2006, 17).[17]

With readers comfortable in their own practices (transformational and affirmational both) and as content to lie outside the strict jurisdiction of the creators' intentions for their text as they are to coexist in peace with each other, it would appear that all conflicts would be resolved before they start. Why, then, does an implicit power difference between creator authority and fan authority remain? Having accepted that readings of a text can be just as legitimate as the author's intended one from the moment they read the novel, one would think _Good Omens_ fans are well-equipped enough to deal with any issues, and yet said issues remain, especially with the anticipation of an influx of new fans who are unfamiliar with the novel.[18] In a post asking fellow fans to "stop spreading the idea" that Aziraphale/Crowley will be a canon romantic relationship in the series, one Tumblr user wrote, "Like, yeah, there's definitely room to _interpret_ it as romantic and you can and Neilman [sic] says that you can and that's fine! But it's not....canon, really" ([not-a-space-alien 2018](http://not-a-space-alien.tumblr.com/post/175221857260/)). Fans are aware of the grey area they inhabit between academic queer reading and transformational queer headcanon—that one fan's "radical revisions of the source text" may be another's straightforward affirmational discourse ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 107).

This grey area is in part a cause of the tricky authority negotiations going on in the fandom—as fans take sides on this divide between reading and headcanon, affirmational and transformational, and generally canonical and non-canonical view of Aziraphale/Crowley, the divide over whether the TV series is canon grows that much wider. Factions are in (largely polite) disagreement over whether Aziraphale/Crowley should be made canon through the same kinds of changes being made in the series, whether fans of the TV series will be as much fans as those who have read the novel, whether their (specifically queer) headcanons are purposefully against the grain of the text or genuinely within its bounds, and whether any of this even matters ([calicovirus 2018](http://calicovirus.tumblr.com/post/178819589485/), [azfellandco 2018](https://azfellandco.tumblr.com/post/179841546902/), [jazzhell 2018](http://jazzhell.tumblr.com/post/178827475581/)). When it comes to established ways to negotiate authority in texts, there is no guideline for a situation like this, where history and unspoken perspectives and forms of fan practices at work that the particular interaction between them all is a Gordian knot with particular twists that no one has attempted to undo.

One of said tangles is the issue of queerbaiting. While the term has a (relatively) standard definition,[19] it is subjective, as fans react to subtextual "coding" with their own biases. One fan's queerbaiting is another fan's personal disappointment, as one fan's subtext is another fan's text. Though a few fans have given their personal views with regards to queerbaiting in _Good Omens_ , often the word is used without any definitions ([wendihoe and futureevilscientist 2017](http://futureevilscientist.tumblr.com/post/164232020437/), [wendihoe and meltingpenguins 2017](http://meltingpenguins.tumblr.com/post/164216848833/)). This conflict can be found in one post: one blogger's reference to the book as "queerbaiting" in their tags may or may not be in line with the original point about the Aziraphale/Crowley relationship being made "explicit" with the adaptation's updates and expansions, as even if their definitions of "implicit" agree, the first blogger may not read it as bait ([skippercifer 2017](https://skippercifer.tumblr.com/post/161881007664/)). Rewriting and redefinition is par for the course in intertextuality, but when specific definitions are unspoken in casual discussion, the ensuing miscommunication contributes to the conflict over how to react to the adaptation's canonicity on that basis.[20] Fans who see the Aziraphale/Crowley relationship as textually evident and perceive a continued lack of queer representation as queerbaiting may reject the adaptation's authority over its negative influence on updated concepts and norms (Aragay and López 2005, 211), those who see it only as subtext may see no problem with the adaptation and accept it as canon, or even combinations thereof ([macdicilla 2018](https://macdicilla.tumblr.com/post/180388597398/)), furthering the confusion.

Another is the particularly close relationship between Gaiman and fans, thanks to the internet. As much as it would be helpful to see the series as nothing but another interpretation of the novel (as Gaiman professes to see it), the shifting availability in the relationship between author and reader on the internet, and the conflation of roles as fans take on the role of author through fan works. Similar circumstances have played out in other fandoms, most notably with J.K. Rowling's regular additions to the Harry Potter universe through everything from contextual works (like the current prequel-esque _Fantastic Beasts_ film series and real-life counterparts to the fictional books mentioned in the novels) to brief Tweets and Q&As confirming or denying fan theories and explicating her own theories as truth (like Dumbledore being gay). Although those scenarios may beg questions of whether an author has "privileged access to the world she has created beyond the texts themselves" and whether "her interpretations tell a truth that any other text-based reading cannot," for _Good Omens_ fans, those questions are further complicated by the fact that their author both exercises that supposed privilege while denying it nevertheless ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 105). As much as Neil Gaiman is widely seen no more than yet another "meta" writer,[21] individual tendencies toward a traditional Author-God view still complicate the overall discussion. Adaptation may "undermine the traditional conception" of source texts, but posts like those cited previously where fans approach Gaiman to ask for a "rulings" on aspects of the text show that not every fan is uninterested in "the boundaries established by the original author," further adding to the remaining conflict over the adaptation's canonicity in comparison to the fanon of fan works (Aragay and López 2005, 202; [Polasek 2017](https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/911/778), 1.1).

* * *

17  Jenkins's "collision" between old and new media, to an extent, is this conflict in the fandom, the texts of a 1990 cult novel and a 2019 Amazon mini-series duking it out through fans across multiple online platforms.

18  See [Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2) (102) and Aragay and López 2005 (204) for more on how "adaptation/rewriting rejuvenates the presumed source" and draws in new fans to old content.

19  Broadly: "the perceived attempt by canon creators (typically of television shows) to woo queer fans and/or slash fans, but with no intention of actually showing a gay relationship" (["Queer Baiting - Fanlore"](https://fanlore.org/wiki/Queer_Baiting/)).

20  This includes both new fans, who have only the context of recent fan discussions and news about the upcoming mini-series ([kajaono 2018](https://kajaono.tumblr.com/post/180002972590/)), and old fans, reacting to the same information ([sapphfoes 2018](http://sapphfoes.tumblr.com/post/178849562748/)).

21  "Meta" here in the fandom sense, not the intertextual one, to refer to general affirmational fandom analysis (writing on the original writing, not straying far from the text). Notably, some fans tag posts by Gaiman about the novel or upcoming series in the same tag as their fellow fans' meta posts ([aziraphalecrowleys 2018](https://aziraphalecrowleys.tumblr.com/post/171528018323/)), think official art is "fan art" ([@lAMZER0 2018](https://twitter.com/lAMZER0/status/1048395540428275712/)), and refer to his interpretations as equal "headcanons" ([skippercifer 2018b](https://skippercifer.tumblr.com/post/173781713249/)).


	5. Conflict resolution

**Conflict resolution**

To answer all these questions of authority and canonicity and the difference between fan and academic practices in queer readings, we turn to Tumblr user irisbleufic. A fan of the novel since 2004, irisbleufic is the author of several well-known works across multiple fandoms, but chiefly for their contributions to the _Good Omens_ fandom. Often treated as an authority on fandom history due to their status as one of the oldest remaining members and their involvement in an infamous part of Aziraphale/Crowley lore,[22] irisbleufic has said of the adaptation, "I'm not as excited about it as most people are. I've liked some of the visuals I've seen, but I'm deeply ambivalent about the rest." ([irisbleufic 2017](http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/165480054260/)), but also that:

> "Among many other things, I'm devoted to _a single novel that was published 28 years ago._ We occasionally get, say, a radio or television adaptation, but those several hundred precious pages are all the canon we have. The rest of what fills a fandom that has lasted nearly 30 years, glorious and constant and endlessly surprising? Is _us_." ([irisbleufic 2018a](http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/173485619285/))

The key to making sense of the conflicts is here, where fanon and canon are distinct but equally authorial. Here is the difference between Gaiman as rewriter and fans as rewriters: one is willing to accept fans as equal partners in making meaning of the text while one is not. While Gaiman puts himself on the same level of interpretation as fans, and fans treat him as such (to the extent that they are capable of), his adaptation does not exist in the same sea of contexts as these fan works do. As the process and result of adaptation can reflect back on the contexts in which the source was rewritten, in the case of _Good Omens_ , that full consideration of all relevant information (of the cultural shift in attitudes towards gay people, of queer subtext, of close reading, of the history of how _Good Omens_ fans collectively read and interact with the text) is made by the fans, and not the author (Aragay and López 2005, 204). Through Foucault's author-function, "authors remain central even within a reader-focused framework," and that is true here; it is not so much that the author's interpretation is rejected or plays no role in the fans' readings,[23] but it is treated as nevertheless of as legitimate as their own ([Busse 2017](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20q22s2), 29). Even while framing the novel as the only "canon," by putting the mini-series on the same level as the affirmational and transformational works by fans, fans give themselves the authority to choose what is and is not canonical—and choose to see the adaptation as truly nothing more than fanon.

By accepting not just the interpretation of one author but many, fans have a greater amount of material for intertextual analysis, leaving the ability of Gaiman's series to assert itself as a meaning maker smaller by comparison. Gaiman may be in an intertextual dialogue with his own text through the process of adapting it for the small screen, this is not the same as the relationship fans have with the text. Their intertextuality includes not just texts regarding other subjects and histories, but those specific to within the fandom—the fan fiction, art, analysis, and history that Gaiman neglects to interact with. Perhaps the adaptation could never have had the queer representation fans have created—perhaps that has always been outside its ability—but while Gaiman and the mini-series may have missed the opportunity found in updating other aspects of the adaptation to reflect today's values to also include queer representation, fans are determined to not make the same mistake (Aragay and López 2005, 211).

* * *

22  Often referred to as "the South Downs thing", irisbleufic attended separate Q&As with Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman respectively in 2005 and asked for clarification about a blog post of Gaiman's about the two of them discussing "what [Crowley and Aziraphale] had been up to" since the novel, ending with, "("...on the South Downs? You really think so?")" ([Gaiman 2005](http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2005/06/optimism-faith-english-breakfast.asp/)). What they were doing, the answer came, was "sharing a cottage", a fact that the fandom is still speculating on/fawning over ([irisbleufic 2012](http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/32594803392/)).

23  This is not to say that those refutations never happen—although they are often tongue-in-cheek memes ([anthonycrowley 2018a](http://anthonycrowley.tumblr.com/post/180052191991/); [macdicilla 2015](https://macdicilla.tumblr.com/post/131350134068/))—but that it is not an antagonistic relationship. In fact, some fans have integrated that distinction into fan works where personal headcanons interact with the presentation of the mini-series as tangential to their own readings ([luppiart 2017](http://luppiart.tumblr.com/post/165487451732/)) or even integral to establishing their ship ([sous_le_saule 2018](https://archiveofourown.org/works/13352874/)).


	6. Conclusion

**Conclusion**

The world has changed since 1990, and _Good Omens_ has been willing to change to meet it, for good and for bad. In the past twenty years, we've seen the beginnings of visibly queer stories on film. "LGBT representation seemed to be on the brink of a breakthrough. Instead, the brink turned out to be the breakthrough," and although mainstream big and small screens have had opportunities to show multidimensional queer characters, they have stalled ([Harris 2016](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/still-looking-lgbt-representation-in-american-cinema/)). That stall, that "status quo [...] of a promise unfulfilled," is unfortunately reflected in _Good Omens_ the mini-series as much as the preceding era of, at best, subtextual representation is reflected in the novel ([Harris 2016](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/still-looking-lgbt-representation-in-american-cinema/)). As I have shown here, _Good Omens_ fans have made the authority to put themselves in the story when no one else would—creating queer characters through active interpretation and re-writing ([Harris 2016](https://www.filmcomment.com/article/still-looking-lgbt-representation-in-american-cinema/)).

These are not new ideas; fans (and particularly queer fans) have always been able to see their source as "neither hermetic, nor self-sufficient nor a closed system" but a lump of clay they can "[cull] evidence from" (Aragay and López 2005, 203; [Polasek 2017](https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/911/778), 5.17). It is the details that I suggest need reconsideration—that the ways we refer to systems of fan practices are not all encompassing and may ignore the influences of other disciplines. There are not just affirmational and transformational fan practices, traditional and modern fan spaces, and variations thereof, and (when taking into account these other influences) the lines between these inter- and intra-fan studies definitions are not as distinct as they may seem ([Polasek 2017](https://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/911/778), 0.1). Taking into account this added layer of nuance, the suggestion that adaptation reflects back on and changes the view of the original text is made even greater by the participation of fans, who then show themselves to be the greatest meaning makers of what is then _their_ text (Aragay and López 2005, 217).

 


	7. Works Cited

**Works Cited**

anthonycrowley. 2018a. "Neil Gaiman: You Can Say Whatever You Want..." _flash bastard_ (blog). November 12, 2018. http://anthonycrowley.tumblr.com/post/180052191991/.

———. 2018b. "Concept: Crowley with a Roomba." _flash bastard_ (blog). November 23, 2018. http://anthonycrowley.tumblr.com/post/180422126681/.

Aragay, Mireia, and Gemma López. 2005. "Inf(l)Ecting Pride and Prejudice: Dialogisn, Intertextuality, and Adaptation." In _Books in Motion: Adaptation, Intertextuality, Authorship_ , edited by Mireia Aragay, 201–219. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Asher-Perrin, Emily. 2013. "(Trying-Mightily-Hard-To-Be) A Comprehensive Reference Guide to Good Omens." Tor.Com. May 22, 2013. https://www.tor.com/2013/05/22/a-comprehensive-reference-guide-to-good-omens/.

azfellandco. 2018. "Anthonycrowley: You Ever Reinterpret the Characters..." _Chaotic Bastard Energy_ (blog). November 6, 2018. https://azfellandco.tumblr.com/post/179841546902/.

aziraphalecrowleys. 2018. "This Is Very Important Question Regarding Good..." _Don't Stop Me Now_ (blog). March 4, 2018. https://aziraphalecrowleys.tumblr.com/post/171528018323/.

bravinto. 2018. "The Time Has Come to Post My Take on Hastur and Ligur's Medieval..." _Hullu Timantti_ (blog). January 11, 2018. http://bravinto.tumblr.com/post/169590037347/.

Busse, Kristina. 2017. _Framing Fan Fiction: Literary and Social Practices in Fan Fiction Communities_. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Cain, Sian. 2016. "Good Omens: Neil Gaiman to Adapt Terry Pratchett Collaboration for TV." _The Guardian_ , April 15, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/books/tvandradioblog/2016/apr/15/good-omens-neil-gaiman-to-adapt-terry-pratchett-collaboration-for-tv/.

calicovirus. 2018. "Calicovirus: Well I Got the Vomit Urge Quashed..." _Shouting Nonsense into the Void_ (blog). October 7, 2018. http://calicovirus.tumblr.com/post/178819589485/.

Doty, Alexander.  _Making Things Perfectly Queer: Interpreting Mass Culture_. University of Minnesota Press, 1993. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.cttttcmx/.

futureevilscientist. 2012a. "Good Omens: The Last Stand (Hidden Meanings)." _Nonsense-Mediated Decay_ (blog). July 7, 2012. http://futureevilscientist.tumblr.com/post/26702097990/.

———. 2012b. "Punctuation Is Giving Me Feels." _Nonsense-Mediated Decay_ (blog). December 2, 2012. http://futureevilscientist.tumblr.com/post/37013149306/.

Gaiman, Neil. 2005. "Optimism. Faith. English Breakfast." _Neil Gaiman's Journal_ (blog). June 5, 2005. http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2005/06/optimism-faith-english-breakfast.asp/.

———. 2006. "What Bears Do on the Lawn." _Neil Gaiman's Journal_ (blog). May 8, 2006. http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2006/05/what-bears-do-on-lawn.html/.

———. 2017a. "Good Omens: A Gentle Reminder." _Neil Gaiman_ (blog). August 15, 2017. http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/164222681376/.

———. 2017b. "I Am Genuinely Sorry to Bother You with This, But..." _Neil Gaiman_ (blog). December 29, 2017. http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/169084845106/.

———. 2018a. "Neil, Are Crowley's Wings Black or White? In The..." _Neil Gaiman_ (blog). April 22, 2018. http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/173209934846/.

———. 2018b. "Shamelesslymkp: Neil-Gaiman: Cirrus-Grey: Neil-Gaiman: Not-a-Space-..." _Neil Gaiman_ (blog). July 8, 2018. http://neil-gaiman.tumblr.com/post/175684868896/.

———. 2018c. "Yup. But I Think That's a Feature, Not a Bug. People Build Characters in Their Heads out of Whatever They Have to Hand, Not Just the Words. Https://Twitter.Com/SerfDunlow/Status/1039255234105823232 ...." Tweet. @neilhimself. September 10, 2018. https://twitter.com/neilhimself/status/1039256111059283969/.

Garber, Linda. 2001. "Around 1991: The Rise of Queer Theory and the Lesbian Intertext." In _Identity Poetics: Race, Class, and the Lesbian-Feminist Roots of Queer Theory_ , 176–208. Columbia University Press. www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/garb11032.11/.

"Good Omens - Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett - Works | Archive of Our Own." n.d. Accessed September 30, 2018. https://archiveofourown.org/tags/Good%20Omens%20-%20Neil%20Gaiman%20*a*%20Terry%20Pratchett/works/.

Harris, Mark. 2016. "Still Looking | Gay Characters in American Movies." _Film Comment_ , November 3, 2016. https://www.filmcomment.com/article/still-looking-lgbt-representation-in-american-cinema/.

Hemley, Matthew. 2014. "BBC Lines up Adaptation of Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett's Good Omens | News." _The Stage_ (blog). September 5, 2014. https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2014/bbc-lines-adaptation-neil-gaiman-terry-pratchetts-good-omens/.

Hoff, Amy. 2013. "Glasgow International Comedy Festival Blog: Amy Hoff: Good Omens." _Glasgow International Comedy Festival Blog_ (blog). February 22, 2013. http://glasgowcomedy.blogspot.com/2013/02/amy-hoff-good-omens.html/.

improbabledreams900. 2018. "Excelsior!" _Excelsior!_ (blog). May 29, 2018. http://improbabledreams900.tumblr.com/tagged/illuminations/.

irisbleufic. 2012. "Where the South Downs Thing Comes From" _(Lives between Pages)_ (blog). September 30, 2012. http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/32594803392/.

———. 2017. "PSA for GO Folks" _(Lives between Pages)_ (blog). September 18, 2017. http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/165480054260/.

———. 2018a. "Fandoms Don't Die When Their Source Material..." _(Lives between Pages)_ (blog). 2018. http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/173485619285/.

———. 2018b. "Am i Hallucinating or Did u Mention Having A..." _(Lives between Pages)_ (blog). October 10, 2018. http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/178924939615/.

irisbleufic, and trans-crowley. 2018. "'Really, My Dear' Is the Kind of Thing Couples Say..." _(Lives between Pages)_ (blog). November 20, 2018. http://irisbleufic.tumblr.com/post/180308926870/.

Jagose, Annamarie. 1996. _Queer Theory: An Introduction_. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press.

jazzhell. 2018. "Likeniobe: I Don't Trust Anyone and Don't Think This Show Is Going to Be Good..." _POWER TO THE PEOPLE_ (blog). October 7, 2018. http://jazzhell.tumblr.com/post/178827475581/.

Jenkins, Henry. 2006. _Convergence Culture_. New York and London: New York University Press.

kajaono. 2018. "I Am Really Hyped for 'Good Omens'. I Never Read the Book..." _22,000 Leagues under the Sea Were My First_ (blog). November 11, 2018. https://kajaono.tumblr.com/post/180002972590/.

KaskardenFluvia. 2018a. _Small Miracles_. https://archiveofourown.org/works/16416734/.

———. 2018b. _A City in Flames_. https://archiveofourown.org/works/16451420/.

Kristeva, Julia. 1986. _The Kristeva Reader_. Edited by Toril Moi. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

@lAMZER0. 2018. "When You See Something While Scrolling and You Think It's Really Good Fan Art Only to Realise It's Official Art - That's How You Know They Did It Right @neilhimselfpic.Twitter.Com/FUok0tUT4x." Tweet. Zero. October 5, 2018. https://twitter.com/lAMZER0/status/1048395540428275712/.

Liptak, Andrew. 2018. "Neil Gaiman on Adapting His and Terry Pratchett's Good Omens for TV." The Verge. October 7, 2018. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/7/17946442/.

Lunasong365. 2016. _Carmina Burana_. https://archiveofourown.org/works/7769941/.

luppiart. 2017. "I Mean, I Had to Take off My Glasses to See This..." _Luppi_ (blog). September 18, 2017. http://luppiart.tumblr.com/post/165487451732/.

macdicilla. 2015. "The Good Omens Fandom: Aziraphale Is a Gay Angel. Neil and Terry: No No No..." _Should Shrymp Paye Indulgynces?_ (blog). October 17, 2015. https://macdicilla.tumblr.com/post/131350134068/.

———. 2018. "Macdicilla: Just Saw One of the Comic..." _Should Shrymp Paye Indulgynces?_ (blog). November 22, 2018. https://macdicilla.tumblr.com/post/180388597398/.

marquise-de-clarabas. 2018. "Marquise-de-Clarabas: Someone Tagged Neil Gaiman on My Post and Now..." _Tout va Très Bien, Madame La Marquise_ (blog). October 30, 2018. https://marquise-de-clarabas.tumblr.com/post/179590263863/.

Martin, Elaine. 2011. "Intertextuality: An Introduction." _The Comparatist_ 35: 148–51.

mejev. 2018. "Чисто Лучшее Что я Создавал Когда Либо." _How Dare You Assume I'm Straight_ (blog). October 28, 2018. http://mejev.tumblr.com/post/179523836912/.

mostlyanything19, and irisbleufic. 2018. "Really Quite ... ?" _I'm Just Saying..._ (blog). 2018. http://mostlyanything19.tumblr.com/post/179660819658/.

nemeanlionblepping. 2018. "Honestly, One Backstory Headcanon I Kind of Played..." _Bad Time Boogaloo_ (blog). November 20, 2018. http://nemeanlionblepping.tumblr.com/post/180310548780/.

Nny. 2010. _World Without End_. https://archiveofourown.org/works/48938/.

not-a-space-alien. 2018. "A Normal Human." _A Normal Human_ (blog). June 24, 2018. http://not-a-space-alien.tumblr.com/post/175221857260/.

obsession_inc. 2009. "Affirmational Fandom vs. Transformational Fandom." Dreamwidth Post. _Obsession_inc_ (blog). June 1, 2009. https://obsession-inc.dreamwidth.org/82589.html/.

@ophio_cordyceps. 2018. "Good Omens Was Extremely Good and i'm Excited to See a Bad Show Full of Homoeroticism When the Miniseries Comes Out." Tweet. Toothsome. October 9, 2018. https://twitter.com/ophio_cordyceps/status/1049857256815235073/.

petimetrek. 2018. "First Zira's Phone, Then Crowley's Wings... What's..." _Petit Maître_ (blog). April 22, 2018. http://petimetrek.tumblr.com/post/173199704101/.

Polasek, Ashley D. 2017. "Traditional Transformations and Transmedial Affirmations: Blurring the Boundaries of Sherlockian Fan Practices." _Transformative Works and Cultures_ 23 (March). https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.2017.0911/.

Pratchett, Terry, and Neil Gaiman. 2007. _Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch_. New York NY: HarperCollins.

"Queer Baiting - Fanlore." n.d. Accessed November 27, 2018. https://fanlore.org/wiki/Queer_Baiting/.

sapphfoes. 2018. "Me: Im Not Gonna Let Good Omens Queerbait Me..." _Every Scholar Is a Schism_ (blog). October 8, 2018. http://sapphfoes.tumblr.com/post/178849562748/.

skippercifer. 2017. "Amaranthinaugust: I Hope Good Omens Is Getting a Modern Twist..." _We Apologise For The Inconvenience_ (blog). June 16, 2017. https://skippercifer.tumblr.com/post/161881007664/.

———. 2018a. "Neilman Is Destroying His Own Book from the Inside..." _We Apologise For The Inconvenience_ (blog). April 22, 2018. https://skippercifer.tumblr.com/post/173204080349/.

———. 2018b. "We Apologise For The Inconvenience." _We Apologise For The Inconvenience_ (blog). May 10, 2018. https://skippercifer.tumblr.com/post/173781713249/.

sous_le_saule. 2018. _Limelight Revelations (Watching the Good Omens TV Series)_. https://archiveofourown.org/works/13352874/.

wendihoe, and futureevilscientist. 2017. "Wendihoe: Is Good Omens Really Lgbt..." _Nonsense-Mediated Decay_ (blog). August 16, 2017. http://futureevilscientist.tumblr.com/post/164232020437/.

wendihoe, and meltingpenguins. 2017. "Wendihoe: Is Good Omens Really Lgbt..." _Melting Penguins_ (blog). August 15, 2017. http://meltingpenguins.tumblr.com/post/164216848833/.

**Author's Note:**

> thanks goes to my prof (who actually knows my ao3 so hey! if you're reading this, professor larsen, extra thanks!) and the good folk of the backroom bookshop discord server, as well as everyone else I've cited here, especially AJ aka irisbleufic, the o-est of g's.
> 
> questions comments and so on are super welcome. this paper is... about all of us, really, so I'd love to hear your thoughts (esp if it's about a footnote link error cuz I'm real shaky on whether I got that all right lol) anonymous or not! that is, unless you're neil gaiman, in which case: FACE ME LIKE A MAN, NEIL, I JUST WANNA TALK
> 
> also, I've linked all the citations I could, but if you'd like to see any of the other pages cited here, lemme know! I've still got access to most of them in some form or another. and if one of your posts is in here and you'd rather it not be, lemme know! I've got a zotero folder full of alts for pretty much anything, so hmu here or on tumblr.
> 
> and uhhh stay awesome! kay bye
> 
> tumblr @[lamphous](http://lamphous.tumblr.com)


End file.
